Motion to withdraw a plea; Ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to timely file a motion to suppress; Trial strategy; Harmless error; Ineffective assistance in the context of a guilty plea; Whether defendant’s plea was “understanding, voluntary, & accurate”; MCR 6.302(A); Adjournment

The court held that the trial court “did not err or otherwise abuse its discretion by accepting defendant’s guilty plea and subsequently refusing to set it aside. Nor has defendant shown that he was prejudiced by any arguable ineffective assistance of counsel.” He was convicted of possession of child sexually abusive material (aggravated possession), possession of child sexually abusive material, and resisting or obstructing a police officer, after child sexually abusive materials were found on his cell phone following the raid of an alleged drug house. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that defense counsel was ineffective because she failed to comply with the trial court’s scheduling order and untimely filed the motion to suppress evidence. It noted he had not argued, much less “shown, that the incriminating evidence against him would have been suppressed under the Fourth Amendment.” Further, his “guilty plea was made, as the record shows, voluntarily and knowingly.” The court also rejected his claim that the trial court erred by failing to grant his request for an adjournment, which would have allowed him to obtain a ruling on his suppression motion before deciding whether to accept the guilty-plea terms offered by the prosecution. “Given the trial court’s broad authority to control its courtroom, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to grant an adjournment to accept a late motion filing.” Its decision was within the range of principled outcomes. And even if the trial court abused its discretion, defendant failed to show prejudice. Affirmed.